Quote from Bob Smith :

Yeah, it is awkward, but I don't want to squash anything up. It was designed to fit on a 1024 resolution screen without the taskbar, with a couple of pixels to spare. Aside from the visual disparity it shouldn't obscure any text, though.

I have a 1024 resolution and large fonts, so some part of interface is missing. Here's a screenshot.
And there's no way to see the whole thing untill I'll set large fonts off (I guess, haven't tried it yet).
Anyway, thanks for the tool )

Why is DumpValve gone? The old lovely pshhhhhh. Is it an improvment?

I like the other changes though.

Strange that noone noticed - there's no boost sound at all. There's just no such a file like "DumpValve" in data\sound folder. Aslo the "Wind" file is missing. Hope this will be fixed.

And here is an obvious example of a real gear wine in attach (cut from "Assen-bmwSTW.wmv"). That's not very nice to hear such stuff all the way ))

Also thanx for the update.

Are the numbers of tyre temps in "F9" info become smaller? Sometimes I don't see the difference, if there is 5 or 6. I use 4xAA (smoothing).

Quote from DratsaB :

I dont really like the SkidRoadHeavyMajor in this archive, too squeely.

I did many RL squeel on road tyres and find it very similar. On my car the squeel is also VERY loud

---
edit: I've forgot to mention the huge advantage of my pack - it's ten times more informative in grip feeling than a default one. Now it's more easy to drive for me, controll the grip, tyre temps and wear. I even improved my times and have a couple WRs (was some more in S1).

Last edited by jenek, Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:55.

Thanks for feedback.
WR's setups are sprinter-orient, so it is normal that they use freqs about 50% higher for extremely lowering CoG. Many of them aren't good for even 10 laps race.
Such advanced in physics guys, like we are, can logically and convincingly explain all discrepancies of LFS, misses with RL )
I just was very happy with a relative results, in case they were more descriptive and can be logically explained well, rather than absolute ones, which are near randomly. And as far as it works, i'll keep that in mind.

Quote from colcob :

In system A, gravity = 9.8 m/s. When the mass is moving downwards on the spring, it is being accelerated by both the spring force and gravity, after it passes spring natural length is is being decellerated by spring force and accelerated by gravity, so its decelleration = g - spring decelleration, and maximum amplitude is reached when this force decellerates the mass to zero velocity.

In system B gravity = 19.6 m/s. As it passes zero point, it will have a higher velocity, as the downward force on it is greater. Yet you claim that it will decellerate to rest in the same distance as in System A, despite it having a higher velocity, and being decellerated at a lower rate due to the increased downward G force.

So the question is, where does the mystery force come from?

Hehe, that's not an equal systems to compare. See you drop your car from a bridge with 9,8 m/s^2 gravity. Firstly, you need to push your car to a top of the bridge by your hands, 'cause of broken engine. Yeah, there's no need to drop off a good working car, right? I know you can do it, and we'll have a force A from the car hitting the ground (or water, milk, whatever you want))
Now imagine you need to do the same, living in a world of 19,6 m/s^2 gravity. We've got a A*A force from hitting a car from same height. But as we see, you hardly managed half of the bridges height and drop it from there.
Because there is to type of energy - kinetic and potential. An object on same height would have more potential energy if the gravity is bigger. But this energy isn't appear from noting.

You can try mine skid sounds pack. I collect files from some other packs and the result is the most real sound I heared in LFS.
Don't forget to make a backup of "snd" folder before put 'em there.

Last edited by jenek, Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:07.

Hello bobsmith and colcobb. I’m not as good in English, as MS Word 2002 do, but if he doesn’t fix wrong spelling somewhere, feel free to ask me that exactly I was meaning there )

From Advanced setup guide:

Quote :

So obviously there is an optimum point in spring frequency – in real life this is known to be around 1.9-2.2Hz for cars around 1 tonne in mass (typical for GT racing cars). That doesn’t automatically mean these frequencies are best for LFS, however. As the weight increases this optimum frequency decreases and vice versa. Since the heaviest car in the game clocks the scales at just over 1.2 tonnes, 2Hz should still be a good point to start from and I wouldn’t recommend dipping much lower. For lighter cars, this optimum point may reach as high as 3Hz, although I wouldn’t recommend going quite that high for any road car in LFS.

The heaviest car in game is FZ50, it has 1379 kg clean, and about 1.5 tonnes with driver and some fuel onboard. However, it has 2,8Hz R/2,9Hz F in today's WR setup. I've analyzed all BL1 WR’s setups. Minimum frequency was 2,47 (Lx4 Rear) and maximum was 3.95 (FV8 Rear). I'm not taking into account extreme 4.42 Hz on UF 1000 Rear.
Overage value is 3.05 Hz while average weight is 941 kg. Seems that in LFS the rule of more weight needs less freqs isn't work at all? Light MRT has a very low freqs, heavy rb4 opposite. Is it just car-specific thing in LFS and has nothing similar to RL GT racing setups?

Probably not. Firstly I thought that this frequency is an absolute value. I multiply that on 1000 and divided on the mass of a car to get a relative value to 1 tonne. The result was perfectly suited frequencies! Heavy cars shows low 1,9Hz/tonne, midweight about 3-5Hz/tonne and MRT shows about 8-10Hz/tonne.
But when I looked how that frequency calculates in Setup Analyzer, it seems like it already care ‘bout this, ‘cause it involves the mass of the car and value 1000. What I see is must be a relative to 1 tonne result. I just can’t understand this twist so maybe you can help me. Here is my Excel calculations attached.
If they are wrong, why the heck are they so perfectly match the RL?


WBR,
Belozersky Eugene, aka jenek

Last edited by jenek, Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:04.